Letters to the Editor

Educators Are Intimidated by Economic Arguments

To the Editor:

The Commentary by Alfie Kohn in your Sept. 3, 1997, issue ("Students Don't 'Work,'--They Learn") is
one of the most valuable things you've published in a good long while.
Mr. Kohn is right to raise the questions that he does about the way
young children are devalued when we are compelled to view them only as
small economic units--"workers," "products," or "producers"--rather
than as people who have human value in themselves for what they
actually are.

But try making this argument at any of those business-sponsored
"education summits" that are advertised so often in your pages. I'm
sure Mr. Kohn tries to do this. So do I. But teachers feel intimidated
by these economic arguments; and superintendents, bullied by the
corporations, often parrot these commercial ideologies and in this way
betray their own real knowledge and their own vocation. They need a lot
more reinforcement, not just in Education Week. But thank you
for giving Mr. Kohn some space to say this.

Jonathan KozolByfield, Mass.

ED's Reading-Test Decision Harms Millions of Students

To the Editor:

On Sept. 3, 1997, the U.S. Department of Education dealt a
devastating blow to its efforts aimed at national testing and national
school reform. In a letter to Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., Secretary
of Education Richard W. Riley made clear that the Clinton
administration's national testing initiative will ignore the millions
of children whose primary language is not English
(limited-English-proficient, or LEP, students) but who are developing
their reading abilities in that primary language through many
instructional programs funded and approved by the department
itself.

In his letter, Mr. Riley indicates that "the purpose of the 4th
grade reading test is to test student proficiency in reading in
English, not in general reading comprehension." This assertion
contradicts the specific test guidelines and previous articulations by
the department and the administration regarding the national testing
initiative.

As a former staff member of the Department of Education, I am
particularly disheartened by this decision, since it works directly
against previous policies that were built on an inclusionary philosophy
and predicated on the assumptions that "all children can learn" and
that any form of accountability must be of service to "all" children.
My days in the department were guided by these presuppositions. The
policy articulated now runs counter to legislated mandates under the
1994 Goals 2000 legislation, which directed the department to "create
clear guidelines regarding the nature, functions, and uses of
assessment, including assessment formats that are appropriate for use
in culturally and linguistically diverse communities."

Most significantly, according to the Council of the Great City
Schools, the national reading test could exclude anywhere from 16
percent to 36 percent of students enrolled in urban districts
considering participation in the volunteer national testing program.
Such an exclusion could be significantly reduced if a reading test were
developed in Spanish.

Not often have I agreed with Republicans about the federal
government's limited role in education or the "intrusive" actions of
the U.S. Department of Education. I subscribe, rather, to the
department's stated mission: "to ensure equal access to education and
promote educational excellence throughout the nation." But in this
particular case, the department has consciously intruded into the realm
of local educational programming by indicating that reading in English
by 4th grade, rather than reading proficiency, should be the goal of
local school districts. And this comes at a time when the department is
stressing, in its very own programs, the importance of high achievement
and the need for local flexibility regarding the forms of curriculum
and instruction that will allow children to learn English and basic
skills such as reading.

We have learned very painfully that allowing children to maximize
their linguistic capital to master the reading enterprise in their
native language--as we do for those students who speak English as their
first language--enhances reading and subject-matter achievement in
English. This decision by the department leaves out of the national
realm of accountability those students who have acquired highly
proficient reading abilities in languages other than English and who
are on their way to English reading proficiencies.

Lastly, Mr. Riley's letter suggests that efforts will be made to use
other tests that are appropriate for LEP students. Quite frankly, that
can be done for all students, including those whose first language is
English. Why have a national test at all? The logic for a national test
for English-speaking students is the same as for those students who are
non-English-speaking: We need a national assessment that informs us
about how students are doing in the critical area of reading. What is
good for one student should be just as good for another under an
administration that purports to promote educational excellence for all
children. Most important, psychometric development of such tests,
particularly in Spanish, are possible at minimal costs and using the
same testing constructs as in English.

I can only arrive at one conclusion: that the Department of
Education has begun to move away from fulfilling its mission. In doing
so, it seems to have bowed to a politically expedient and unnecessary
position that is directly in contrast to what we know can be done and
ought to be done. This is a position that can harm millions of
students.

Eugene E. GarciaProfessor and Dean
Graduate School of Education
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, Calif.

Testing's Power To Change Curricula Depends on View

To the Editor:

H. D. Hoover of the University of Iowa complained in one of your
recent articles that "there is a whole history of trying to use tests
to change curricula, and the record there is not particularly sterling"
("Experts Question Value of New
National Tests," Sept. 3, 1997). His statement is not indisputably
true, as the recent California experience reveals.

In 1995, the federally funded National Assessment of Educational
Progress reported that California children were the least capable
readers in the nation. At the same time it found that "whole language"
reading instruction was more popular there than in any other state.

Upon reading this report, the California School Boards Association
vigorously protested that the reading crisis it described must be
remedied. Quick to respond, the California legislature passed laws that
declared whole-language teaching illegal.

There probably could not be a more "sterling" effect of test
administration on the enhancement of children's opportunity to learn
than this instance. The new laws have led to a mandate to reading
teachers from the California superintendent of public instruction that
improves classroom practice and student learning in a substantial and
meaningful way.

In the California case, administration of tests not only indicated
how poorly reading teachers had fulfilled their mission, but also what
caused this instructional failure. Well-designed tests, such as NAEP,
clearly can serve these functions, Mr. Hoover's pessimism
notwithstanding.

Patrick GroffProfessor of Education Emeritus
San Diego State University
San Diego, Calif.

Explaining 'Word Clearing,' Texts From L. Ron Hubbard

To the Editor:

You were correct in reporting that various study materials developed
by L. Ron Hubbard have been used by public school teachers in
California and elsewhere for years ("Texts Highlight Scientology's Role in
Education," Sept. 17, 1997). And the verdict is in from independent
experts who have honestly scrutinized the materials: There really is no
church-state issue.

Mr. Hubbard was a prolific writer not only on the subject of the
mind and spirit, but on topics ranging from art and photography to
history and seamanship. And he is still one of the best-selling
science-fiction writers. It's hardly a national story that he has also
written on the subject of education.

American education needs innovative ideas, and your mention of the
subject Mr. Hubbard called "word clearing" merits some elaboration.
Describing it as simply using a dictionary to look up words while
reading is an oversimplification. It's like saying the secret to
playing the piano beautifully is to hit the keys with your fingers.
That's also true, and yet it is also an oversimplification.

Why do some people stumble when they read certain phrases aloud? Why
do some children consistently mispronounce words in the Pledge of
Allegiance? Why is someone alert one minute while studying and yet
moments later is suddenly feeling sleepy? Why can one person read a set
of instructions and perform the functions called for, and another
cannot--no matter how many times he reads them?

Almost unbelievably, these are all symptoms of having bypassed a
definition, having gone by a word that one didn't understand--a
misunderstood word. This was a principle Mr. Hubbard discovered in the
1960s that has been tested and proven in thousands of cases since.

Perhaps you can think of a subject you once initially liked very
much but which you grew to detest. Did you know that a person skilled
in "word clearing" could help you locate the exact point--and the exact
word or words you didn't understand--where your interest turned to
disinterest or worse? And that, having found and cleared up those
words, you would find your interest in the subject restored?

Or ask someone to read out loud the preamble to the U.S.
Constitution. Then have him go through each of the words to make sure
he can give you the definition of each one. If he can't, have him look
the word up and get a clear concept of that word. When all words are
understood, ask the person to read the preamble aloud again. Notice the
difference. You will be astonished.

This is just one aspect of Mr. Hubbard's "Study Technology." There's
much more and, in all, it represents a substantial contribution to the
field of educational research.

Witness one public school in Lynwood, Calif., that recently had 50
of its lowest achievers complete a reading program based on Mr.
Hubbard's technology. After only seven weeks of part-time instruction,
the students' average grade level improved by eight months--and in some
cases the improvement was as much as two grade levels.

No wonder David Rodier, an associate professor of philosophy at
American University in Washington, described Mr. Hubbard's educational
methods as a "revolution in thought."

Meanwhile, critics will continue to be critics, and people truly
interested in education will read Mr. Hubbard's materials and make up
their own minds.

Rena WeinbergPresident
Association for Better Living
and Education (ABLE) International
Los Angeles, Calif.

'Good Habits' Author Finds Support From AMA Study

Only a week after it appeared in Education Week, a major
national study published by the American Medical Association found
that: "Overriding classroom size, rules, all those structural things,
the human element of the teacher making the connection with kids is the
bottom line."

The study is the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health,
and its findings can be very helpful to those of us struggling to put
across the message that teachers today have new and sometimes different
responsibilities. Donald M. Clark, in his letter to the editor about my
essay ("Good Teaching's '7 Habits'
Rate a '2' for Impact," Letters, Sept. 3, 1997), told me basically
that I did not know what I was talking about. I urge him to tell that
to this study, which made its findings after surveying 90,000
students.